New anti-gun legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
They are the cornerstone of their purpose in writing the constitution to begin with..
Actually they were a compromise written after the constitution was completed to bring on board the anti federalist crowd and ensure ratification of the constitution by the states.
In fact, it was known as the "Massachusetts Compromise''
Madison was actually opposed to the need for a bill of rights at first, but eventually came around to the idea as a pragmatic way to get the constitution ratified, and campaigned for them after his change of heart.
There were actually 12 ammendments originally proposed in 1789, 10 being ratified by 1791 and of the 2 remaining, one was ratified in 1992. One remains unratified.

Facts matter....
 
Last edited:

bhudda

heffe'
I am not anti gun. I grew up with guns and hunting. I dont currently own any, but no real reason for that other than after my ex wife stole all my guns I never replaced them just because I really didn't miss them. Occasionally I start thinking of purchasing another just for home defense but have never gotten around to it.

I have always supported gun rights, and while I still do to an extent, things in my life have changed my outlook to a degree.

A while back my brother in Alaska shot and killed a man in cold blood. No if ands or butts about it. No self defense. Just a deranged act of violence.

My brother has always had a violent side, a major temper, and mental issues. Over the last five years his issues have gotten much worse, as he fell deeper and deeper into an anti government, survivalist sort. He has always owned many guns but over this time has added to his arsenal in a major way. Purchasing guns that are not designed for shooting, or hunting, but for killing and little else.

I have always been close with my brother. We grew up with a single mother, very poor, and were best friends most of my life. His changes over the last 5 years made us grow apart to a large degree, but let me tell you that receiving the phone call that my brother was arrested for first degree murder, then finding out the details of said murder was possibly the most jarring experience of my life. To say that this has impacted me greatly and turned my life upside down is an understatement. I have not yet begun to figure out how to process this. So many thoughts, so many emotions. There is one less human being on this planet and the direct cause of that is my own flesh and blood.

Now I dont know the answers, and I definitely see both sides of the coin in these discussions. But at this point in time I know one thing very, very well. A man's life was removed simply due to the fact that my brother had a gun on him. Period. Ya he could have ran the guy over with his car or stabbed him with a fork etc etc etc but there is ZERO doubt in my mind that the ONLY reason that man is dead is because my brother owned guns. My brother is simply not the type to pursue violence in other less convenient methods. If something happens at the bar and someone pissed him off, he wasn't going to fight it out. That would risk him losing. He'd simply get a gun because that was guaranteeing him the power and control. He's just that way. Always one to take the easy way out in all walks of life.

My brother was the poster child for someone who should not be allowed to own guns. He'd threatened gun violence several times in his life. He threatened to shoot his wife, his kids, his dogs and himself in more than one violent outburst and loss of his grip on reality. He had been reported to police several times in Alaska. He once pointed a gun at our mother. When he was a freshman in high school he walked into the police station in Port Angeles and told them he was having thoughts of shooting kids at school. Hes had issues his whole life, and anyone who knew him well was aware of this. These issues stemmed from some traumatic events when he was a child. Still, he had no problem owning a large arsenal.

My brother should not have been allowed to own a gun. Period. Others like him should not be allowed to own guns. I dont know how to create a world where law abiding, sound of mind people can own guns while people such as my brother cannot, but I do know that not everyone should own one. I believe this more strongly today, as I look forward at a life without my brother in it, than ever before.

I think of the man he killed often. By all accounts he was far from a saint himself, but that doesn't mean he should be dead. My brother will sit in a cell for a long time, if not the rest of his life. This could have all been avoided. It just wouldn't have happened without a gun in the equation. It just wouldn't have.

I dont know the solution. I dont pretend to know. But I am now 100% in support of anything that could keep guns out of the hands of people like my brother.

I've often enjoyed a good spirited gun control debate, but I find my outlook on things has changed drastically with this recent turn. Its one thing to talk hypothetical but when it hits home like this it has just changed things for me. Guns need to be kept out of the hands of many people. Does Roper owning guns concern me? Absolutely not. He is the type of person who's rights should be steadfastly supported. But if there is something that can be done, including registration, that would keep guns out of the hands of people like my brother, that would keep my life and so many others from being turned so topsy turvy, then I am one hundred percent behind it.
Man that’s heavy Nick, I’m sorry you have the weight of that on your conscience. Much respect for sharing and I hope you find peace within...
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
I am not anti gun. I grew up with guns and hunting. I dont currently own any, but no real reason for that other than after my ex wife stole all my guns I never replaced them just because I really didn't miss them. Occasionally I start thinking of purchasing another just for home defense but have never gotten around to it.

I have always supported gun rights, and while I still do to an extent, things in my life have changed my outlook to a degree.

A while back my brother in Alaska shot and killed a man in cold blood. No if ands or butts about it. No self defense. Just a deranged act of violence.

My brother has always had a violent side, a major temper, and mental issues. Over the last five years his issues have gotten much worse, as he fell deeper and deeper into an anti government, survivalist sort. He has always owned many guns but over this time has added to his arsenal in a major way. Purchasing guns that are not designed for shooting, or hunting, but for killing and little else.

I have always been close with my brother. We grew up with a single mother, very poor, and were best friends most of my life. His changes over the last 5 years made us grow apart to a large degree, but let me tell you that receiving the phone call that my brother was arrested for first degree murder, then finding out the details of said murder was possibly the most jarring experience of my life. To say that this has impacted me greatly and turned my life upside down is an understatement. I have not yet begun to figure out how to process this. So many thoughts, so many emotions. There is one less human being on this planet and the direct cause of that is my own flesh and blood.

Now I dont know the answers, and I definitely see both sides of the coin in these discussions. But at this point in time I know one thing very, very well. A man's life was removed simply due to the fact that my brother had a gun on him. Period. Ya he could have ran the guy over with his car or stabbed him with a fork etc etc etc but there is ZERO doubt in my mind that the ONLY reason that man is dead is because my brother owned guns. My brother is simply not the type to pursue violence in other less convenient methods. If something happens at the bar and someone pissed him off, he wasn't going to fight it out. That would risk him losing. He'd simply get a gun because that was guaranteeing him the power and control. He's just that way. Always one to take the easy way out in all walks of life.

My brother was the poster child for someone who should not be allowed to own guns. He'd threatened gun violence several times in his life. He threatened to shoot his wife, his kids, his dogs and himself in more than one violent outburst and loss of his grip on reality. He had been reported to police several times in Alaska. He once pointed a gun at our mother. When he was a freshman in high school he walked into the police station in Port Angeles and told them he was having thoughts of shooting kids at school. Hes had issues his whole life, and anyone who knew him well was aware of this. These issues stemmed from some traumatic events when he was a child. Still, he had no problem owning a large arsenal.

My brother should not have been allowed to own a gun. Period. Others like him should not be allowed to own guns. I dont know how to create a world where law abiding, sound of mind people can own guns while people such as my brother cannot, but I do know that not everyone should own one. I believe this more strongly today, as I look forward at a life without my brother in it, than ever before.

I think of the man he killed often. By all accounts he was far from a saint himself, but that doesn't mean he should be dead. My brother will sit in a cell for a long time, if not the rest of his life. This could have all been avoided. It just wouldn't have happened without a gun in the equation. It just wouldn't have.

I dont know the solution. I dont pretend to know. But I am now 100% in support of anything that could keep guns out of the hands of people like my brother.

I've often enjoyed a good spirited gun control debate, but I find my outlook on things has changed drastically with this recent turn. Its one thing to talk hypothetical but when it hits home like this it has just changed things for me. Guns need to be kept out of the hands of many people. Does Roper owning guns concern me? Absolutely not. He is the type of person who's rights should be steadfastly supported. But if there is something that can be done, including registration, that would keep guns out of the hands of people like my brother, that would keep my life and so many others from being turned so topsy turvy, then I am one hundred percent behind it.

I can't begin the understand the strength and courage it took to write your story. Thank you for sharing, I hope it helps bring you peace.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Those are your definitions, not legal ones and there in lies the whole need for the judicial branch of government.
There inlies the need to stick with what the founding fathers said.

I know it's increasingly unpopular these days but words have actual meanings and are not open to personal interpretations. The only thing that matters is what the founding fathers meant by what they said..

I do not believe it is up to the whim of the American electorate to change that..
I appreciate your ability to support the NRA and firearm registration. I own firearms and have always believed that registration was the only way to stem the tide of mass shootings in this country.

I traveled internationally for my job and met hunters from many countries. Conversations generally got around to the “gun problem” in the U.S. As firearm registration (and training) is required in most countries I’ve visited, this was the suggestion forwarded by business associates.

Registration makes sense. While it can’t cover all firearms in circulation, it would be a start on new sales. We register vehicles and that system works well. We have to start somewhere.


Again we have a massive lying problem in America, I think we should have registration and training for everyone who wants to talk..
We also have a false religion problem in this country, we need to make sure everyone religious is doing it in a state sanctioned way...
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
We don't have a gun violence problem, we have a violence problem. Too great of a percentage of the population have no problem with creating violence. Take a look at the "summer of love". Then you have a few homicidal maniacs that think nothing of killing lots of people, with guns. Or, diesel and fertilizer.

We have laws against murder, yet that doesn't prevent murder, it only punishes after the fact. Registration will do nothing to prevent any violence. If it did the registration on your car would prevent you from getting drunk and killing someone. All registration does is collect your car tab fees that our government already showed they have no regard for the will of the people. Registration is about revenue creation, period. For now...

Go into any sporting or guns shop and look around. The shelves are bare. Why? Because folks are afraid. Afraid of what you ask? I'll wager they will say the need to protect themselves. From what you ask? From the violence that they feared from "peaceful protests". From the fact that in greater Seattle criminals have a get out of jail free card. Free to commit crimes over and over again. Add to that the nearly total disregard for the Seattle Police and the defunding. So now the very social activists that want to get rid of guns has caused a fire sale on that very thing. And this is just the local picture.

And there you have Roper's view on the subject...Happy Saturday Y'all
80% of all gun violence is gang related.. we have a gang problem not a gun problem..
 

jasmillo

WFF Supporter
There inlies the need to stick with what the founding fathers said.

I know it's increasingly unpopular these days but words have actual meanings and are not open to personal interpretations. The only thing that matters is what the founding fathers meant by what they said..

I do not believe it is up to the whim of the American electorate to change that..

Words are just symbols (in written form) or sounds (in spoken form) that are strung together to impart intent from one person to another. The person(s) to which that intent is directed, as a human, has to interpret the meaning. There would literally be no need for the judicial branch of government if the intent or definition of every word had a meaning all humans agreed on. Because of this, you, nor I, have any idea “what the founding fathers meant” when they wrote the constitution. In fact, I am sure, in the room, as they were writing it, there was disagreement as to what they wrote actually meant.

My question to you is what is the purpose of the judicial branch if this is not the case?
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
There inlies the need to stick with what the founding fathers said.

I know it's increasingly unpopular these days but words have actual meanings and are not open to personal interpretations. The only thing that matters is what the founding fathers meant by what they said..

I do not believe it is up to the whim of the American electorate to change that..



Again we have a massive lying problem in America, I think we should have registration and training for everyone who wants to talk..
We also have a false religion problem in this country, we need to make sure everyone religious is doing it in a state sanctioned way...

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

The original constitution counted African American slaves as 3/5 of a person, should we have stuck with that Rob???

The framers wisely added a mechanism to amend the Constitution, because they understood that times change and they had not written a perfect document, the idea was that the ability to amend the constitution could forestall revolution.

Not even "originalism", which you seem profess, excludes the possibility of changes (amendments) to the Constitution.

cheers
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

The original constitution counted African American slaves as 3/5 of a person, should we have stuck with that Rob???

The framers wisely added a mechanism to amend the Constitution, because they understood that times change and they had not written a perfect document, the idea was that the ability to amend the constitution could forestall revolution.

Not even "originalism", which you seem profess, excludes the possibility of changes (amendments) to the Constitution.

cheers


You are talking about adding rights, not taking rights away, that's a huge difference.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Words are just symbols (in written form) or sounds (in spoken form) that are strung together to impart intent from one person to another. The person(s) to which that intent is directed, as a human, has to interpret the meaning. There would literally be no need for the judicial branch of government if the intent or definition of every word had a meaning all humans agreed on. Because of this, you, nor I, have any idea “what the founding fathers meant” when they wrote the constitution. In fact, I am sure, in the room, as they were writing it, there was disagreement as to what they wrote actually meant.

My question to you is what is the purpose of the judicial branch if this is not the case?
.

The purpose of the judicial branch is to determine if laws passed in the legislature are Constitutional. That is their one and only function.


Quite frankly the big problem is that people ( both right and left) go to DC with agendas.
In my opinion all agendas other than upholding the constitution violate a lawmakers oath of office and that person cannot be sworn in as a lawmaker.

The things we want them to do are the problem.. when what congress should be doing is pretty much nothing... we don't need any more laws or regulations. All we need is for government to let the people be the people and stay out of our way.....

Go........... balance the budget or something


Ohh. And we can get an understanding of what the the founding fathers meant by reading other things that they have written. They intended all law makers to perpetually be Constitutional originality in terms of the bill of rights
 
Last edited:

Zak

WFF Supporter
"The purpose of the judicial branch is to determine if laws passed in the legislature are Constitutional. That is their one and only function."

I think the judiciary's function is a bit broader than that. Not all court challenges raise constitutional claims and judges are often called upon to apply the law to the facts render a decision, without examining whether the law itself is constitutional.

And as to constitutional challenges, it can be difficult to determine whether a law is constitutional until you can examine how it is applied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top